What Jodi Hildebrandt did was completely unethical

What Jodi Hildebrandt Did Was Completely Unethical: A Clinical Analysis of Counseling Standards

When someone shares their deepest fears or confessions with a counselor, there exists an implicit contract: the counselor will respond with training, compassion, and ethical rigor. The case of Jodi Hildebrandt, a prominent figure in certain LDS circles, raises serious questions about what happens when that contract is violated. What Jodi Hildebrandt did was completely unethical according to established clinical psychology standards, and understanding why matters not only for those directly affected but for anyone seeking mental health support within faith communities.

The incident in question involved Hildebrandt's response to disclosures made by individuals in her care. According to reporting by the Mormon Stories Podcast, the specific nature of her interventions departed significantly from evidence-based psychological practice. This article examines those departures, what professional ethics would have dictated instead, and what this case reveals about the intersection of faith-based counseling and clinical responsibility.

Background: Clinical Counseling Standards and Faith-Based Practice

Clinical psychology and counseling psychology operate within a framework of ethical guidelines established by professional bodies including the American Psychological Association (APA). These standards exist for a reason: they protect vulnerable individuals and ensure that interventions rest on evidence rather than personal intuition or cultural assumptions.

When a client discloses something sensitive, whether doubt, transgression, or trauma, the clinician's response shapes the entire trajectory of treatment. The stakes are high.